peter_n Posted October 20, 2007 Share #21 Posted October 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I had Don Goldberg (DAG Repair) work on mine to optimize focusing for f/1.2. He charged $70.Agree this is a good solution. My Noctilux is one of the original E58 versions . I tested it against a new one and it was soft...so its more than just the calibration.. I ve had it for over 25 years and it was used when I got it. so I expected a pretty thorough CLA would be required. I think I will send DAG my lenses when it comes to fine tuning the set.Exactly. I bought an E58 last year and sent it to DAG for a complete CLA and I also sent the M7 it is used on in case there were any calibration issues. The work was $100 and the setup works really well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 Hi peter_n, Take a look here Noctilux First Observation and ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
glenerrolrd Posted October 20, 2007 Share #22 Posted October 20, 2007 Exactly. I bought an E58 last year and sent it to DAG for a complete CLA and I also sent the M7 it is used on in case there were any calibration issues. The work was $100 and the setup works really well.Now I am really depressed! Waiting 6 months no lens and paying $1300.....doesn t get any better of course unless I have to send it back again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 20, 2007 Share #23 Posted October 20, 2007 I don't think I will ever sell my 85L. {snipped}. I sold my 85L as soon as I got my 80R Lux. On the M8, you want the 75 Lux. Neither Leica is 1.2, but I didn't really shoot the 85 at 1.2 much. The 80 R lux is just a steal used right now, and I can focus more quickly with a focus confirming adapter on my Canons than I could the 85L (you can say all you want about how great that Canon lens is--and it is a great lens--but focusing is not one of its charms. Manual focusing the 85 1.2L is ridiculous). Now, on my Canon bodies and on the DMR, the 80 R Lux draws beautifully to my eyes from 1.6 to 2.0, where it is a wee bit softer than the 85L. After 2.0 the Leica is practically as sharp--I haven't looked at MTF characteristics, and I don't care to--the 80 stopped down is as sharp as the sensor Now here's the secret thing: the 80 Leica has vastly superior, IMO, CA and contrast characteristics from the Canon lens. This is saying something given how good the 85L really is. My jaw just dropped using this lens the first few times. @ Eoin--on the M8, I think what you may like to replace the 85L on the M is a little 'older' 75 Lux, maybe one of the ones made in Canada, again shot around 1.6. Mine is not quite the gem the 80R is, but it's very, very close (if you can get used to the framelines on the M8). I think you can see what I mean by these two shots. First, the 75 Lux at f1.6. Look familiar? I can make lots of $$ with this look: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Next, a very difficult shot. I was setting up a photograph to use a reflector when all of a sudden on a very cloudy day the sun burst through the clouds and made this wonderful, if difficult to manage, rim light on the couple. Another second or two and there would have been no contrast left as the sun washed out the couple--with the 85L I would have lost them both due to flare and CA. The 75 Lux did pretty well, I think (pardon the crop--I needed to adjust for the 75 lines ) At f2.0... Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Next, a very difficult shot. I was setting up a photograph to use a reflector when all of a sudden on a very cloudy day the sun burst through the clouds and made this wonderful, if difficult to manage, rim light on the couple. Another second or two and there would have been no contrast left as the sun washed out the couple--with the 85L I would have lost them both due to flare and CA. The 75 Lux did pretty well, I think (pardon the crop--I needed to adjust for the 75 lines ) At f2.0... ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/36130-noctilux-first-observation-and/?do=findComment&comment=381265'>More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 20, 2007 Share #24 Posted October 20, 2007 Jamie, your examples are really interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 20, 2007 Share #25 Posted October 20, 2007 Thanks Rubén...(well, I think... I never know what "interesting" means LOL!) I must admit, the only thing that drives me a little nuts with the 75 Lux on the M8 is the frame lines. I wouldn't normally clip a hand quite like that. And in the second shot, the colour was also very hard to manage as the lens started to flare. I know it just looks like rim light, but it's very close to a silhouette in the original RAW file. You can see at the top of his head where his brown hair is shifting into flare-ish magenta. But on any other lens system I've used, the detail and colour would be far worse. EDIT: I also did these quickly in ACR, because it was handy while I was working in PS. As most folks know, I prefer C1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 20, 2007 Share #26 Posted October 20, 2007 They are great photographs and interesting examples for your reasoning. My Summilux-M 75mm backfocuses at f/1.4 at short distances (1-2 meters). I try to compensate this but... The framelines are very, very inacurate at medium distances (say 5-10 meters or so). The lens itself is impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 20, 2007 Share #27 Posted October 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Rubén, thanks again! If I could get the framelines fixed for any one of the lenses I own it would be this one--no doubt. And yes, I had some problems focusing my 75 too, and I thought it was just the M8. But it wasn't--it was the lens. I had a specialist look at it and he said it actually couldn't acheive infinity focus, which was interesting since the lens, while used, was still mint when I got it. Now that it's fixed there is still some shift as you stop down, but nothing like what it was and I can focus it fine even wide open. But it's all worth it; as you say, the lens itself is impressive! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted October 21, 2007 Share #28 Posted October 21, 2007 Jamie, Thanks for the tip, it's been said many times to me to check out the 75 Summilux. However I have tried it and while being a super lens I feel in the range I use it between f:/2.8 - f:/4 it has far more contrast and stronger tones & transitions than the 85L. In fact I find very little difference in the 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron Pre Asph. They are very similar IMO. I'm sure most of these traits can be engineered in Post processing I was just searching over the past year for a lens which would negate the need and get me close to where I was in 85L terms. Robert Visualising the outcome of bokeh or background is not a problem for me in these situations, I rather concentrate to have in focus facial features and leave the background to it's own devices given the distance focal length and aperture range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted October 21, 2007 Share #29 Posted October 21, 2007 I don't think I will ever sell my 85L. I am in the process of getting Nikon lenses for a D3 and in the 85 department, the Nikon and even the Zeiss ZF 85 don't come close to the 85L wide open. The 85L is a practical lens that I have made mega-bucks with. I have yet to see a single image made with a Nocti that speaks to me that I should buy it. All I have ever seen from that lens are static object shots of beer bottles, wine glasses, strange forms in low light, but nothing that would earn a buck. Nocti for $4,000-$5,000? I will most certainly pass. I would spend 3K on a mint used Nikon 58 1.2 Nocti before I spend that kind of money on a Noct. M. Daniel, I have to agree with you, I felt the same about the lens. Were it not for the total move to dRF I would never have sold the 85L. I have seen many beautiful images made with the Nocti and not of bottles or strange forms. It's interesting that you also qualify this with low light and here also I have to agree there is something common in those images I like, they all seem to have been taken in lower light. I have to be honest and say I've yet to extract an image I would be pleased with. I guess time and practice will develop a feel for the lens and it personality. For sure I would not be parting with $4-$5k for this lens and the only reason I have it is due to the value of the 30% deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 21, 2007 Share #30 Posted October 21, 2007 I haven't read most of this thread so I hope I am not going off on a tangent, blindly! KM-25 has stated that he has made mega buck from his 85L lens, but has yet to see an image he would buy from a Noctilux. To me, that comparison is a bit 'apples & oranges'. Selling and buy are exactly opposite so hardly a basis for comparison. Incidently, I have made mega bucks from my Noct, but hasten to add I would not buy them all! I think the real difference, If I may hazard a guess, is that good pictures are made by good photographers, not good lenses. Making mega bucks (such as have km-25 & me) from whatever lens is not a measure of a good pic. That's just good marketing. What makes a good picture? I'm not sure, as we all differ on that anyway. Forgive my observations as it's late here. Not intending to tread on toes. Just unwinding after a rather testy Sunday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted October 21, 2007 Share #31 Posted October 21, 2007 Jamie, Thanks for the tip, it's been said many times to me to check out the 75 Summilux. However I have tried it and while being a super lens I feel in the range I use it between f:/2.8 - f:/4 it has far more contrast and stronger tones & transitions than the 85L. In fact I find very little difference in the 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron Pre Asph. They are very similar IMO. I'm sure most of these traits can be engineered in Post processing I was just searching over the past year for a lens which would negate the need and get me close to where I was in 85L terms. Robert Visualising the outcome of bokeh or background is not a problem for me in these situations, I rather concentrate to have in focus facial features and leave the background to it's own devices given the distance focal length and aperture range. I am getting better at visualizing it. The SLR is kind of like a security blanket isn't it? I agree the 85 has a softness I can't find elsewhere. I would be interested in seeing how the new canon 50 1.2 looks also. One thing I discovered this weekend shooting a group of three in this soft focus style (I know, crazy to do it...) was the 50 preLux at 1.4 is sharp on center but is not sharp in the outer zones (where the partners were, the CEO was sharp thank god...) the outer zones were noticeably softer and had a weird coma like blur to them. I can post an example later. At 2.8 it was crispy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 21, 2007 Share #32 Posted October 21, 2007 Well, if it's soft contrast you want and smooth transitions--on the M system--between 2.8 and 4.0 (where it's true the 75 Lux sharpens up and regains contrast) then you might just want an older 90 elmarit (or maybe a new Summarit; we'll see). Especially for portraits, I love this older lens. The 'thin' one is the one I'm talking about. Not very expensive right now either. But slow. And it flares if you look at it the wrong way;) CA is still better than the 85 1.2L, and in controlled light, it's got a really nice look. FWIW, the Canon 50 1.2L, which I use all the time, is a bit different than the 85 1.2, but still a really interesting design; it's got a ton of vignetting and it's really soft at the edges wide open; all is sharp and contrasty by f4. I use this a lot on the 5d when I don't have a Summilux R on it. But on the 5d with an adapter, the 80R lux takes the cake (and to tell the truth, the best 50 lens I ever used on a Canon is the current 50 R lux, which is not an ASPH design like the current M is...). Ah well, we're way off topic now! Sorry for the hijack! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share #33 Posted October 21, 2007 I did some focus testing with the chart method and a ruler method. You cannot get very close to the chart or ruler since the Noctilux does not focus closer that about 3.5 feet. This makes it difficult to determine exactly what your center of focus truly is from what I can determine but at this distance and wide open, it might back focus just slightly. Your depth of field is zip at this distance. I took shots at all openings and of course it gets better going back into the image. I tried several shots wide open and at longer distances with good results. Since I doubt I would be shooting much at f1 and this close in most situations, it works for me. It is not easy to focus it in low light. Zone focusing would be better probably especially when you do not have the time to focus quickly. The long throw of the focus ring keeps the DOF very narrow at anything wider that f8. Yeah I will keep it, should have never taken it out of the box........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 29, 2007 Share #34 Posted October 29, 2007 A few days ago I bought a near mint Noctilux. I like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 29, 2007 Share #35 Posted October 29, 2007 You should rather post some pictures and a longer description Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted October 29, 2007 Share #36 Posted October 29, 2007 KM-25 has stated that he has made mega buck from his 85L lens, but has yet to see an image he would buy from a Noctilux. To me, that comparison is a bit 'apples & oranges'. Selling and buy are exactly opposite so hardly a basis for comparison. Incidently, I have made mega bucks from my Noct, but hasten to add I would not buy them all! I think the real difference, If I may hazard a guess, is that good pictures are made by good photographers, not good lenses. There are some photographers doing great work with Noctiluxes on flickr. Two of my favorites are Tommy Oshima and moaan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 29, 2007 Share #37 Posted October 29, 2007 My Noctilux was manufactured in 1997. It blocks a small part of the viewfinder, but I don't care. It is a big lens. The focus is very slow, but precise. Beautiful rendition wide open and very, very sharp stopping down. I am playing with it now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspeltz Posted October 29, 2007 Share #38 Posted October 29, 2007 When I ordered my Noctilux, I was really intending on just selling it to fund other camera toys. The first problem I encountered with that thinking was when I opened the bax and looked at the lens. I should not have done that because I immediately thought, why woud I want to sell this, I could never be able to justify it later in life. I will let the wife advise me. I told her the reason I bought the Noctilux and let her hold it as well. Her observation was, honey are you sure you can lift this thing with your recent shoulder surgery. I had surgery two weeks ago on my AC joint. I told her it might be painful but I thought I could suffer through the agony. She said well keep it!!! So I put it on the M8 and started snapping. It is true to is nature, difficult to focus in limited light and will take some practice with the long throw on the focusing. When you do get the focus right at f1, it is incredibly sharp and detailed. Now that it is a keeper, I need to determine if it is back focusing and I need to know what would be a simple test to find out. Can someone point me in the right direction. I can use the ruler method but I need to know how far away should the subject be, tesa at all apertures? Thanks in advance.......... So I took my Noctilux into a totally dark restaurant Saturday night and, at f1 photographed my friends as if it were daylight. Then I went outside into the totally dark night, saw the moon shining over the ocean with reflections on the water in a wierd spooky way and photographed that at f1. The pictures were, as usual, outstanding. That is why I haul it out about the same time Dracula emerges from his crypt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 29, 2007 Share #39 Posted October 29, 2007 The worst thing about Dracula is that he is usually in movement in the night. It is very difficult to take a photograph of him with a slower lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspeltz Posted October 29, 2007 Share #40 Posted October 29, 2007 The worst thing about Dracula is that he is usually in movement in the night. It is very difficult to take a photograph of him with a slower lens. Ha! Well said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.